Kobe Bryant or Dwayne Wade : Do GMs know best?

There has been a passionate debate between NBA fans regarding the fact that is it Dwayne Wade or Kobe Bryant for the best.

LA Lakers fans believe that Kobe is the best where as the many people in Miami Heat believe that Wade's the next gen.

Regarding Kobe Bryant, NBA analysts have talked about his superior one-on-one defense and defensive footwork, his outside shooting ability, his post-up moves, his cold-blooded killer instinct, and his knowledge of the game. Of course, eight selections each to the All-NBA First Team and All-Defensive First Team also help his case.

When analyzing Wade’s game, analysts refer to statistics such as a higher field goal percentage or his excellent team and help-defense.

Oftentimes people compare the two players’ PER scores. Kobe Bryant has a respectable 23.5 rating, good for 17th all-time. However, Dwyane Wade’s score of 25.7 is good enough for being ranked 6th all-time.

Many fans argue that Wade is a more efficient player, and point to his impressive performance in the 2006 NBA Finals. During that series, Wade led his team with a stat line of 34.7 PPG, 7.8 RPG, and 2.7 SPG.

The second highest scoring teammate was an aging Shaquille O’Neal, who averaged only 13.8 PPG in that series.

Without a doubt, both players have had legendary careers and I’m sure most teams would gladly take either player on their rosters.

Each year, the NBA surveys all of the team executives around the league in its annual preseason GM survey. Over the years the survey has been handed out, an interesting trend has developed regarding Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade.

This year, 86 percent of NBA GMs voted Bryant to be the best shooting guard in the NBA. This selection has been consistent, as Kobe is currently the only player who has been selected as the best at his position in every year the survey has been done.

In addition, 79 percent of the GMs said Kobe Bryant is the best player at taking game-winning shots. Kobe has been given this distinction nine consecutive years.

Some metrics, such as those used by 82games.com, tend to point out that Kobe is not the most clutch player in the league. However, these statistics can be misleading in determining what counts as clutch shots.

Perhaps these GMs think about highlights of Kobe’s career in the clutch. For instance, he’s had several game winners in the playoffs against teams like the Phoenix Suns and the Portland Trailblazers.

His play down the stretch of the second half of the 2008 Olympics Gold Medal game led Team USA to victory. And, of course, Kobe’s seven game-winning jump shots last year is still fresh in everyone’s minds, including the one against Wade.

Kobe Bryant may have more career accolades than Dwyane Wade thus far, but Kobe has played twice as many seasons. Teamed with Lebron James and Chris Bosh, Wade may one day be able to catch Kobe Bryant with five NBA championships.

So do the NBA GMs know what they are talking about? Do their opinions matter and carry any weight?

In any case, this debate between Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade is sure to rage on.

The reality is both these players will never measure up to Michael Jordan, and anyone that says different doesn't know anything about basketball. Michael transcended the game, and he was BIGGER than the game itself. Whereas Kobe and Wade aren't. Hell, some people even throw in LeBron James and Kevin Durant into the argument now too, about being the next big thing. However, the reality is, none of them will ever be as dominant as Michael Jeffrey Jordan. He was a man playing among little boys. He didn't just take over games, he took over playoff series. When he stepped out onto the court, it didn't matter if you were Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Patrick Ewing, Reggie Miller, or even Isiah Thomas, as he was ALWAYS THE BEST PLAYER on the court. Take in mind, the names I just mentioned, are all hall of famers who would smoke any of Wade and Kobe's current competition, as the level of competition in the NBA is nowhere near what it was in previous generations. Sure, there's a lot of good players, but most of them wouldn't last even ONE GAME back in the nineties, eighties or earlier.

I think you were on to something there until you stated that the players and competition of Jordan's era are superior that of today. Just because the 80's and 90's era of basketball was a more physical game does not mean those era's had more competition than today. In Jordan's 6 NBA championships he had nothing to get through in the East. It was a cakewalk to the finals every year when all he had to get through was the likes of Reggie Miller, Mookie Blaylock, a young Shaq and Penny, Tim Hardaway, Patrick Ewing, Alonzo Mourning, and Isaiah Thomas at the end of his career. There's no competition there whatsoever compared to today. Then once he'd reach the finals, The Western Conference was different every year outside of the two consecutive years Utah made it with Stockton and Malone. Both of those series were very competitive.

You are correct in everything you say about Jordan however, outside of his level of competition in my opinion. It's not just my opinion, I've read at least 5 articles up to this point that have also stated that today's level of competition is vastly superior to that of which Jordan faced in his time.

As for Kobe v. Wade, if they were both in their prime, I would go for Kobe. The guy is flat out one of the greatest scorers, competitors, and is one of the determined and hardest-working players the game has ever seen. I do give Wade credit though as he single-handedly carried the Heat to the 2006 title. If I were drafting a team today, I would go with Wade, as he is 4 years younger.

I forgot to mention, If Jordan would have had to face the Rockets in the finals in the two seasons he was on hiatus, I think that would have been their biggest test by far. Those Rockets teams were perfectly constructed with Hakeem Olajuwon playing arguably the best basketball any center had played since Wilt. Then they surrounded him with outstanding 3-point shooters. I'm not sure the Bulls would have won those series. What in the world would they have done to handle Hakeem? The Bulls played Center by committee. Remember, that 2nd Rockets Championship team Swept the same Orlando Magic team 4-0 that beat Jordan's Bulls 4-2 in the 2nd round of the playoffs.

Yeah, but you fail to remember that Jordan only played like half a season with the Bulls, up to that point, so he was not exactly in game shape completely, when they played the Magic. If Jordan never would've left the game of basketball for a while, he would been a lot more dominant in that series, and Nick Anderson never would've been able to touch him.

Plus, your acting as if Jordan's Bulls never played a team with a dominant center before. Gee, I guess whenever they played teams like the Knicks, Pacers, Cavaliers, and Atlanta Hawks, guys like Mutombo, Ewing, Smits and Daugherty didn't count huh?

I beg to differ on that because most of today's players are soft; both physically and mentally than the previous generation of players if you stop to think about it.

One, look at Chris Paul, one of the league's best point guards. Last season, Rajon Rondo made a harsh statements to him, during a game, on how his team WILL NEVER win a title like his team has. You want to know what happened? He cried about it. You call that level of competition worthy of being compared to the players of old? Give me a break. Although Michael was one of my favorite players, anyone that knows a lot about basketball will tell you players, during the previous generations, not only were a lot more physical, they were also more verbally abusive to each other with smack talk. Therefore, if Chris Paul were to have been a point guard, during the nineties or earlier, he would've ended up being just another role player because guys like Jordan, Barkley, Reggie and others would pick at his confidence to get inside his head.

Uh huh, I noticed you also forgot to mention the fact that he also played against legends like Larry Bird, Dominique Wilkins and the bad boy Pistons, in the eighties. Granted, Jordan never won a title in the eighties, but he did still dominate statistically wise. As one of his first playoff games against the a elite team like the Boston Celtics, he scored 65 points in that game. Sure, the Bulls still lost but even Bird admitted they had no answer for him at all, and this is coming from the captain of one of the best team's in the East during that era.

Plus, let's not forget, he also played against Magic Johnson in his first final. Sure, you can argue and say he was old by the time they faced each other, but the Lakers were still good enough to make it to the finals. Then you look at the Blazers, who had Clyde "the Glyde" Drexler, who happens to be one of few players in NBA history who can hold his own against Michael Jordan. Then what about the Phoenix Suns? Did you forget them?

They only had players like Charles Barkley, Kevin Johnson and Thunder Dan Majerle. Plus, you also seem to forget that Shaq and Kobe PLAYED against Jordan's Bulls a few times and got smoked by them. In fact, the Bulls beat the same said Utah Jazz team that dominated Kobe and Shaq's Lakers, when they were both in their primes mind you.

Although you are right about one thing, the Jazz was by far their toughest opponent, so I'll give you that one.

Well, lets agree to disagree then. Because most of today's sports analyst are often hypocrites if you ever read what they say closely. Like I've seen analyst who praise Kobe like he's the best player in the world, and saying he's possibly better than Jordan. Then they take it back and say he isn't, whenever he LOSES in the playoffs. Whats up with that? Why the flip flopping? If he's better than Michael Jordan, then why are you backing up on your own word whenever Kobe chokes in the playoffs? Sounds hypocritical to me, as most of today's sports writers are more concerned about promoting the game rather than focusing on the FACTS about the game.

However, if I would strongly advise you to follow Reggie Miller, Scottie Pippen and Kenny Smith, as those guys always KNOW exactly what they're talking about, AND they never flip flop on anything.

Now, this part, I agree with you a 100 percent. Kobe is clearly better than Wade. However, Wade is clearly better than his teammate LeBron James, who's more concerned about himself than winning a title if you ask me.

I'm not going to delve further into a historical argument here. That would go on forever, and who can really say for certain what is the truth when comparing one era to another. We could sit here and cross-match dozens of key players at differing stages of their careers as well as teams throughout the late eighties, nineties, and the 00's and get nowhere. I agree that Jordan is the greatest of all-time regardless of what happens in the next 10 years. His legacy will almost be impossible to beat whether or not he played against inferior competition.

However, to get back closer to the topic of the thread, I agree with you that Wade is better than LeBron because of his superior mental toughness and for the fact that he has carried a team to the championship before. Wade has never quit on his team while LeBron has. Many people say that LeBron never had a formidable supporting cast in Cleveland, but I would beg to differ on that opinion. The Cavs look just fine now without him, even considering the fact they have played much of the season thus far without Mo Williams and Antwan Jamison.

I also think we should give Phil Jackson some credit. Neither Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant have won a title without him. He has managed the biggest egos and a diverse bunch of controversial players. The guy is nothing short of amazing 11 NBA championships and going for his 4th 3-peat this year. Absolutely untouchable.

I agree with that. Although i still say that guys like Pat Riley, Larry Brown, Gregg Poppovich are still better coaches than Phil. You are right. Phil Jackson definitely played a huge role in why Kobe and Michael won their titles, which is why I always find it funny that people always claim Phil Jackson only won his titles by jumping on the bandwagon of up and coming teams. That's just absurd, and a huge slap in the face to one of the league's best coaches in NBA history.

I'm more than willing to give Pat Riley and Gregg Popovich credit for their outstanding coaching resumes, but I'm not going to place Larry Brown on that level despite his long career. Now, Brown has been coaching for serveral decades and has had success in the NBA, NCAA, and ABA but has had so many losing seasons and troubles with managing players with big egos. He's almost so strict and oldschool that he loses the respect of his players. He's been a great coach, but is not in a class with Phil, Pops, or Riley in my opinion.

It is of my opinion that Phil Jackson is the greatest coach not only in basketball history, but in the history of pro sports. The guy's players buy in to whatever he is preaching. Nobody has been more successful in really any sort of capacity. I don't care who he's coached, none of those guys have won a title without him.

Coaching matters. It matters a lot. I think a big reason why LeBron quit on his team last season and why he was also ousted prematurely in the previous year is because of their weak coaching with Mike Brown. That guy was not championship material in terms of coaching and LeBron just couldn't deal with it anymore. They had the pieces.

Doc Rivers is also a great coach. No, I haven't fogotten about his days of coaching Orlando or his early struggles as coach of Boston, but the guy has clearly proven to be the best coach in the East.

The thing is though that one cannot point out a time in which Phil Jackson has struggled. This guy knows how to plant seeds into the minds of officials like none other. I also have no idea how he sits on the bench so calmly throughout games, especially during times when I am going crazy as a fan. Game 7 of the NBA finals down 13 in the 3rd quarter and he doesn't even show any concern. Kudos.

Well I don't know if i would call Phil Jackson the greatest coach in all of sports, because that's kind of a stretch there. Hell, one can easily say baseball coach, Joe Torre, is just as good as a coach as NBA coach, Phil Jackson, because he too had to manage various personalities and egos on the Yankees, and he had a egomaniac in George Steinbrenner as a boss, to put up with too along with the critical New York media. Although I do agree, Phil certainly a great coach. Definitely deserving of being in the top 5 best NBA coaches of all time, hands down; probably all of sports. However to say he's the best ever, well...I don't know if I would go that far; although you can make a great argument for it though.

As far Larry Brown goes, I think he's definitely in the same class as Pat Riley and Phil Jackson, despite some of his down years. The thing you have to take in mind is that unlike Phil Jackson, who took over young up and coming teams that lacked guidance, Larry Brown often took on teams that flat out sucked before he got there, then he turned them around. The only exception was New York but to be fair, Isiah Thomas only hired him as a scape goat to cover his own a** if you followed that situation closely.

However, that still doesn't diminish the fact that Larry Brown is one of the few coaches in sports history to have success at college and pro level. Something that rarely ever happens; no matter what sport we talk about. However, you are right though about his old school ways and how emotional he gets. Unlike Phil Jackson, who has nerves of steel, Larry wears his heart and emotions on his sleeve. That's always been his achiles heel, but it's also been one his strengths to turn teams from nothing into promising playoff teams. It also helped him turn mediocre roleplayers like Chauncey Billups into superstars, under his guidance.

sorry, i forgot to comment on this part. I agree completely with you about Doc Rivers and Mike Brown. Doc Rivers is so under rated as a coach if you ask me. As far as his career with Orlando and early in Boston, I really don't blame him for those years if you ask me. In Orlando, he did a great job making his team, at least, competitive despite the fact, that his two star players, McGrady and Grant Hill were always injured. Plus, Danny Ainge made a lot bad front office moves, that didn't exactly give Doc much of a chance. Hell, if it wasn't for his buddy, Kevin McHale, just handing over Kevin Garnett to the Celtics, then I would still idly stand by and call Danny Ainge one of the worst executives ever.

As far as Mike Brown goes, he should have fired a long time ago. Seriously. In the playoffs not only did he fail to inspire confidence into LeBron's teammates, all his plays went from well balanced basketball, in the season, to just give the ball to LeBron on every play, during the playoffs. Sadly, all his plays too predictable, and how he managed to remain a nba coach for so long, i'll never know.

I think the Mavs really earned it, 2-0, as of today May 5. Dirk is hard to stop. Plus Only three NBA teams have come back to win a best-of-seven series after losing the first two at home. They are in the same situation...

I get so tired of people comparing mj to Kobe and LeBron, that it sickens me. Don't get me wrong, they're both great players in their own right. however, they're not as dominate as michael jordan. when...

I am interested in seeing how people think these 3 great players match up. So rank Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, and Michael Jordan 1,2,3. If you think Jordan should not be included in this because he is not a current...

I'm a big lakers fan, and I've always hated Lebron James with a passion. Over the years he has become a more evolved basketball player, but Kobe Bryant has continued to age so impressively that he rightfully gave...